MuseumDESCRIPTION:
Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) speaks with Jerry Fowler about the genocide in Darfur and his efforts in Congress to halt the violence (November 15, 2005). The Senator talks about why this issue is important to him, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, and why the foreign appropriations bill cut $50 million from the African Union.
TRANSCRIPT:
JERRY FOWLER: Welcome to Vital Voices on Genocide Prevention, a podcasting service of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I am Jerry Fowler. I am joined today by Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Senator Brownback was first elected to the Senate in 1996 and he has emerged as one of the leading voices in Congress on human rights issues. He has been especially outspoken on the crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan which he visited last year. Senator Brownback, welcome.
SAM BROWNBACK: I am delighted to join you.
JERRY FOWLER: I wanted to start by asking what led you to get involved in addressing human rights issues, and particularly Darfur. Senators have a lot of topics that they can deal with, yet you have spent a lot of your time on human rights. Why is that?
SAM BROWNBACK: I had a staff member when I first came into the Senate that brought some of these to my attention. I had not particularly focused on them when I was in the House. I was in the House for a two-year time period. It came at a particular time in my life too when I was sinking into my own faith, understanding of that faith in action. So when someone brought this to me at that point in time when I was understanding that we all have a responsibility for each other, and then seeing this level of suffering and the horrific nature of it, I looked at it—and now having the knowledge about it—I had to act. It was something that you have to deal with. You cannot just put it to the side and say, “I know about that but I am going to choose to ignore it.” It was so intense—the suffering was—there was so much of it that I knew we had to do something.
JERRY FOWLER: You mention your faith. Human rights is something a lot of Americans can relate to because of their faith, but also something that cuts across faith lines. People who are more secular take an interest in human rights too. There seems to be a broad reservoir of support for promoting human rights in the public, but it tends to be passive. What is the relationship between political leadership and public interest in human rights issues?
SAM BROWNBACK: I think it is to take that base of support and lift it up, and activate it. I remember being in Smith Center, Kansas, which is near the geographical center of the United States, a place that most of your listeners will not know where it is or who lives there. A person came up to me there and said, “What are you doing about what is taking place in southern Sudan?” This is not in their particular interest. What happens in southern Sudan would have no direct, physical impact on them, yet their heart was stirred. What I think you can do with political leadership, is take that basic interest, that goodness in peoples’ heart and stir it to action. They will not only respond, they will deeply appreciate leadership that leads us towards doing what is good, and what is right, and what is noble. They want that kind of leadership. They are in positions that—often, like people all around the country—that they are busy with their own day and their activities, but they want to see their nation used for good.
JERRY FOWLER: You mentioned one of your constituents coming up and raising the issue of southern Sudan, which of course you dealt with a lot in previous years, but I wonder in general, what is the response of your constituents to the amount of time you spend on human rights. Do they ever come to you and say, “Well Senator, that is all great, but we have more important problems here in Kansas.”
SAM BROWNBACK: No. I often get people saying to me, “I really appreciate what you are doing.” And it will come from across the political spectrum. It will be people who are conservative, moderate, liberal, who would never support me on some of the other issues that I push, but on this one they are saying, “That is something that I really appreciate your doing. It is obviously heartfelt. It is obviously not for political gain, and I am glad you are doing it.”
JERRY FOWLER: One of the issues that you have obviously been spending a lot of time on recently lately is the crisis in Darfur. You were one of the earliest to speak out on it, but now the situation is about to enter its fourth year, and it seems that things are now starting to get worse. A lot of hope has been pinned on this very small African Union force that is on the ground there, but Congress just took action to cut 50 million dollars—or to take out of the appropriations bill 50 million dollars—that would have spent on that force. How did that happen? What are going to be the consequences of that?
SAM BROWNBACK: It has been going on far too long, and now it is moving into various different directions. Instead of the government sponsoring the Janjaweed, the Janjaweed is separating and the opposition is moving in different forces and becoming more difficult to deal with. We do not have enough African Union troops on the ground; they are not well enough trained, they do not have enough logistical support, or intelligence support, and they have a broad enough mandate of engagement. It is like we have put something in that is likely to fail. The pressure on the budget is being expressed and being showcased and what we need to do, and what we are trying to do, is fight to get some of that money put back in or in an emergency supplemental bill, the first part of this next year. But we have got to do this; we have an ongoing genocide. Unlike the Rwandan one, where it happened in a period of months, this is rolling out over a period of years. It remains, nonetheless, that you are losing a lot of lives and it is genocide. I am not discouraged, but I am disappointed that we have not really been able to effectively deal with this today, that we have a piece in place, but it is not sufficient to deal with the scale of the problem.
JERRY FOWLER: One thing that has occurred to me—especially with regard to Darfur—is that the perpetrators are pretty intense and relentless, and the rest of us, come and go. We focus on it for a little while, and then we get diverted by other issues. Especially at the highest levels internationally, you will see the Security Council will pay attention, and then they get diverted. How do we get the same level of urgency and relentlessness that the perpetrators seem to have?
SAM BROWNBACK: I wish I knew. The United States is very much that way where we will get intense for a period of time, and then move on and kind of say, “Ok, I solved that one and now it is time to go on to the next issue.” The other side knows that a lot of times, if they can survive the wave, then there is a good chance that we will all move on. We cannot let that happen. We have to continue to bring it up. We have to continue to showcase the stories. We also have to show success. I think people get really weary of saying “Ok, there is a civil war crisis in Sudan.” They are going, “What is new about that? I have been hearing about that for a decade.” We have to be able to tell them, “Look, in southern Sudan there is no longer a war going on. That actually you do have a peace agreement that is grabbing, taking hold, and people are moving back to a normal life. And the slavery that was happening five years ago is no longer happening.” I think one of the things we fail at is to show that actually we have succeeded in some places, and life is much better for people, instead of just saying it is a crisis and people saying, “You have been telling me that for a long time, and nothing seems to change.”
JERRY FOWLER: I suppose there is a fine line between pointing out the progress that has been made, and again robbing the situation of the sense of urgency. Even in Darfur there certainly more international assistance going in then was at the beginning of 2004 when the Sudanese government was basically keeping the international community out completely.
SAM BROWNBACK: And, you have to also compare it to southern Sudan where the crisis and the perpetration by the North on the South, had been taking place for decades and there had been no effective response. Finally there was enough of a constituency built up and a response by the President that did a masterful job. I do think we acted quicker in Darfur than in other places, but still not effective to get it stopped.
JERRY FOWLER: Speaking of the situation in southern Sudan, one of the objectives of the United States government now is to promote and implement the peace agreement that resolved the conflict in the South. That by definition requires positive interaction with the government in Khartoum, at the same time that this genocide is being committed in Darfur. Just recently, at the end of October, 105 members of the House of Representatives—a bipartisan group—wrote a scathing letter to Secretary Rice. They said, “Rather than hold accountable a regime declared guilty of genocide we appear to be engaged in a policy of appeasement.” Pretty rough words—I guess the counterbalance is that we have to promote this peace in the South while keeping pressure up in Darfur. How do we balance those?
SAM BROWNBACK: Difficult to do, but I think the way we have to do it is to continue to speak truth in the situation and say that while this regime is in place, we will work with them in the South, but they are conducting genocide in the West. We condemn it. We categorically condemn it and we do not do things that allow them to say to their own people in Sudan that they are being accepted by the international community. I think we have to keep a very aggressive pressure on and not provide them examples or places that they can use to hold up to their own citizenry that they are accepted by the international community, because they are not. They are supporters in conducting genocide, as we speak, in the West.
JERRY FOWLER: So what do you think are the major things the United States should be doing now with regard to Darfur?
SAM BROWNBACK: I think we have to get that African Union troop level up in a broader scale engagement, and providing more logistical and intelligence information. I would like to see us have more of NATO involvement, in particularly logistics, and intelligence, and training?
JERRY FOWLER: What about NATO troops on the ground, as some groups have suggested?
SAM BROWNBACK: I think we are really at a point that it would be good to have that taking place—initially by advisors, and providing transportation and intelligence so that they can get a firmer hand. I think it would be a very good move. I also think it would be an effective way for us to finally work together to stop an ongoing genocide, which we have not been able to do in the last century on this earth.
JERRY FOWLER: The United States has declared what is happening in Darfur to be genocide; you sponsored the resolution in the Senate to that affect. Both the action by the administration and Congress was over a year ago now. Is there a danger that by labeling what is happening in Darfur genocide but not stopping it that we are going to deprive the word of meaning?
SAM BROWNBACK: There is that danger, but we are on new terrain; when we declared something genocide while it was happening, that was new terrain for us. Previously we had only declared genocides post facto. It was real easy to say, “That was a genocide,” and feel bad about it ourselves, but nonetheless there are millions dead. What we did was at the front end of this one declare it a genocide which was an unusual step, and people argued that same point, “Aren’t you going to possibly derive this of meaning?” Yet, we desperately wanted to do it to stop the killing and to save lives. I think we probably have because we have brought more focus, more resources to bear with it. The problem is that we still have not been effective with it. Future situation that develop—if we do this same thing—we are going to have to be able to get a bit more pressure. One of the key issues we have not been able to resolve is how the international community responds to genocide that happens inside a country—not across country borders—but inside a country. We still have not been able to develop the foreign policy tools to address that type of situation timely or effectively. I think you are seeing this evolve in front of your eyes right now.
JERRY FOWLER: One tension I suppose in responding to situations inside a country is whether it is done through the United Nations Security Council, or outside the Security Council. What we have seen with Darfur is obstacles in the Security Council, especially from China.
SAM BROWNBACK: I think we just have to get use to that as a matter of fact. China is on the Security Council and China will bypass any other interests in favor of being able to get oil resources to China, which is what they are doing in the Sudan. They are going to vote against us as long as they can milk Sudan for oil. We are going to have to find other venues. NATO is the most likely multi-lateral, or we will have to build on a country by country basis. I think we are just going to have to recognize that the United Nations in many of these cases—perhaps all—is going to be ineffective, particularly if there is some natural resource base to that country that the Chinese are interested in.
JERRY FOWLER: To change gears for a minute, you are on your way shortly to visit the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why are you going to Congo?
SAM BROWNBACK: It, I believe, is the most under-reported humanitarian crisis in the world. Thousands dying weekly, monthly. A multi-faceted battle, a lack of any sort of governmental control, not particularly effective United Nations effort, enormous disease problem. I want to go in there to be able to see it myself, to become more educated about it, and then to raise the awareness of it with my colleagues. It also has a big impact on the entire region. Congo butts up against a number of countries, and a number of countries play in Congo. It is one we really need to get integrated into, and I think it is the least reported humanitarian crisis in the world.
JERRY FOWLER: What do you expect to do when you come back with the information that you gather?
SAM BROWNBACK: We will put together a report for my colleagues and other to be able to look at, and then I hope to be able to recommend a series of policy issues. To address one facet of it is that you have a natural resource base there that is being exploited by gangs. Is there a way to stop that? Let us look at that. Are there other countries that we can back out of the area? Can we get the United Nations force to be more effective, and can we start to get some healthcare and water into these desperate residences in the region. I hope to break it into bite size pieces that we can look at and say we that, “We have some effective models in the past of how we have dealt with this, let us put them in place here.”
JERRY FOWLER: Senator, there are a lot of student groups that are organizing all around the country—and community groups as well—on the issue of Darfur. One question they often ask is what is the most effective way for them to transmit their concerns about Darfur to the government in Washington?
SAM BROWNBACK: As we go into the holiday season and the members of Congress are out on break in January holding town hall meetings or even going to basketball games or whatever the case may be. The most effective way is to go up and say something to a member of the House or the Senate, go to a town hall meeting, call into the talk radio. I find that that is the most effective way. Lincoln use to talk about “taking public opinion baths.” That is what I consider when I go to the basketball game, go to the grocery store, when I am out at my kid’s recreational activity, when somebody casually raises an issue, because it obviously meant enough to them that they were willing to raise the issue up. They can call, they can write, I hope they write letters to the editor. And I want to urge people, as a secondary issue, when they are planning their trips or vacations, do an impact vacation. Instead of going to Paris, go to Madagascar, or go into Kenya and go North a ways towards where the United Nations is working. Go to safe places; do not go to places where you will get harmed. Travel to Rwanda. It will change your life. It is safe. Once you then see and feel and talk to people and get involved in these situations, you will not be the same. You will say, “I have to do something.” I really urge people to take an impact vacation. It will help the country you are going to because they need the resources as well; they need tourists to come in and visit; there are very interesting things to see, and you will not be the same afterwards.
JERRY FOWLER: One final issue that kind of ties together Congo and Darfur and northern Uganda—another place you have been within the last year—is the International Criminal Court which was established in 2002 in the Hague; very controversial in the United States, but is trying to bring accountability to these horrendous situations. How do you think, going forward, the United States is going to deal with this court that this administration, and the Clinton administration, was very weary of?
SAM BROWNBACK: I am not a big fan of the International Criminal Court. I think it can be used by our adversaries a lot against us and to hold us back from doing—in many cases—what we know needs to be done when nobody else in the world is willing to act. There is real question to whether the International Criminal Court in northern Uganda against Joseph Kony has been positive or negative. A number of people in northern Uganda would say this has been harmful to their negotiations and trying to rid themselves of the Lord’s Resistance Army. I do not think it is the venue to use. I think ones that are put together on more of an ad hoc basis in the regions are more acceptable, and I think at the end of the day will prove to be more effective.
JERRY FOWLER: Senator Brownback, thank you very much; safe travels.
SAM BROWNBACK: Thank you.
JERRY FOWLER: You have been listening to Vital Voices on Genocide Prevention, a podcasting service of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. To learn more about the genocide emergency in Darfur, visit our website at www.committeeonconscience.org.
